1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6801 OF 2021
BETWEEN
MR SARAVANAN
S/O GOPINATHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO. 14/B, 19TH STREET
ANNAI THERASA NAGAR-II
PUZHUTHIVAKKAM
ULLAGARAM
CHENNAI - 600091
TAMIL NADU
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI : ABHISHEK M R , ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY K R PURAM P S
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.
BENGALURU 560036
2 . SMT. PRAVEENA VENU
S/O SARAVANAN
AGED 37 YEARS
R/AT 602, 7TH CROSS
DIWAKAR CASTLE GRACE VILLA
2ND BLOCK
2
AKSHYANAGAR
TC PALYA MAIN ROD,
KOWDEHANAVALLI
R M NAGAR K R PURAM
BENGALURU - 560016
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55246/2018
PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED X ACMM, BANGALORE IN
RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARRAYED
ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal
proceedings in C.C.No.55246/2018 pending on the file of X
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P. Act’).
3
2.
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State.
3.
Learned
counsel
for
respondent
No.2-
complainant remained absent.
4.
The factual matrix of the case is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2, the Police registered a case
on 17.04.2017 where she has alleged that her marriage
was solemnized with this petitioner on 06.02.2009 at
Chennai and there was demand of dowry from the family
members of the petitioner. The same was fulfilled by her
Parents by paying Rs.50,000/- cash, gold ornaments i.e.,
chain and ring etc. Subsequently, respondent No.2 said to
be secured job at Bengaluru, she came to Bengaluru and
joined to the duty where the petitioner also came back to
Bengaluru along with her and stayed at Bengaluru.
Subsequently, the petitioner also secured job in CSI
company with the salary of Rs.35,000/. Thereafter, the
petitioner and his family members started torturing the
4
complainant stating that now the petitioner said to be
secured a job and earning Rs.35,000/-, therefore, they
demanded
more
dowry
and
also
a
motorcycle.
Subsequently, the father of the complainant said to be
given an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner to
purchase the motorcycle. Thereafter, again the accused
started
harassing
her
physically
and
mentally
by
demanding
additional
dowry
and
subsequently,
on
10.02.2016, accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the mother and
sister of accused No.1 came to Bengaluru and again
harassed the complainant to bring additional dowry of
Rs.3.00 lakh. Subsequently on 03.03.2017, the petitioner
said to be quarreled with the complainant, went to Chennai
and stayed there. Thereafter, the complaint came to be
filed. After registering the case, the petitioner along with
his mother and sister approached this Court for quashing
the FIR which came to be withdrawn in view of filing the
charge-sheet. Subsequently, the petitioner’s mother and
sister who are said to be accused Nos.2 and 3 approached
this Court in Crl.P.No.1557/2021 and the same was
5
allowed. The charge-sheet against accused Nos.2 and 3
was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
02.06.2021. Now the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this
Court.
5.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that the petitioner is innocent and he has been
falsely implicated. In fact, respondent No.2 secured job at
Bengaluru and she insisted the petitioner to stay at
Bengaluru. But as the petitioner wanted to look after his
mother, he went back to Chennai and he has issued a legal
notice to respondent No.2 to come and join him. But she
has replied to the notice that she is reluctant to come and
join the petitioner. After the reply notice, this complaint
came to be filed. Even there is a contradiction in the
statement of the complainant and the reply notice in
respect of 03.03.2017 incident. A false case has been
registered in order to harass the petitioner. Allowing the
criminal proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of
law. Therefore, prayed for quashing the same.
6
6.
Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader seriously objected the petition and contended that
this petitioner has continuously harassed the complainant.
She has categorically stated in the complaint about the
harassment, demand of additional dowry, obtaining the
motorcycle etc., and the petitioner has also assaulted the
complainant on 03.03.2017. Though the Co-ordinate
Bench has quashed the criminal proceedings against
accused Nos.2 and 3 in the different footing as they were
mother and sister of accused No.1 and they used to come
to Be